And all passes into night
BBC, until now an unabashed apologist, even cheerleader for global warming hysteria, offers this up, unexpectedly: solar inactivity at time at height of expected peak baffles scientists. There’s an interesting six-minute video at the link in which various experts confess that they simply don’t know what the future holds. One says that “in 40 years, there’s 20% chance we’ll be back in the Maunder Minimum“, while another says, “unlike in the 1600’s, there are now industrial age gasses to account for, so it is impossible to determine what the net effect will be.”
We have hundreds of years of observational data from our star, yet the demise of solar sunspots was completely unexpected. We claim to know exactly what the future holds via global warming, baed on a few decades of observation, but can’t predict an eleven-year cycle of solar flares.
Global warmists have consistently refused to consider solar activity, or the lack of it, in their precise, science-is-settled computer models; now we learn that they have no idea what the effect will be.
For this, intelligent people had to put up with personal attacks from illiterates like Dollar Bill, claiming that we’re unscientific? Unbelievable.
BBC: Canadian study predicts 40% decline in Indian fishery due to global warming. Just three years ago, the same BBC reported that fish would soon disappear because of pollution and overfishing. For some reason, today’s BBC report made no mention of any possible cause for the sorry state of the fish population except global warming.
I’m quite used to BBC reporting being whored out to suit its editorial position, but what about the British Columbian “scientists” who produced the report cited by the Brits? Imagine for a minute that you were a scientist looking for funding. Would you be more likely to get cash if you (a) proposed documenting how over-fishing and pollution were wiping out fish stocks as conclusively and repeatedly documented over the past decades? or (b) blaming the same phenomenon on global warming? If you answered “a”, then you probably don’t think the global warming emails revealed anything wrong with the state of scientific research today.
This morning’s BBC News Hour had a heart wrenching story on the UN World Hunger swap meet where various African countries met to discuss how much the taxpayers of the world’s rich nations should pay to keep African leaders’ Swiss bank accounts full. What struck me, besides the sorry story of poverty and hunger, was the claim by the BBC announcer himself that Kenya’s current drought was “the first clear result of global warming”. What a load of hooey.
PBS’s Nova has a program on evolution airing and in last week’s episode, Chapter 4, there’s a fascinating discussion of rapid environmental change in Ethiopia’s Rift Valley (just north of Kenya) between 4 and 2.5 million years ago. A lake 1800 meters deep appeared and disappeared several times over that period, completely changing the environment in as little as 500 years. The hypothesis of the scientists studying this geological phenomenon is that it was these rapid changes and the need to adapt so often and so quickly back and forth between a jungle environment to a grassland habitat that forced humans to evolve.
Whether (weather?) that theory is true or not, to say that the current drought in Kenya is “caused by global warming” is preposterous and unfounded on fact.